H.J McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist,” is an attempt to show atheism as a more practical alternative to the Christian belief. McCloskey reasons against the theistic beliefs of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and design. He references the presence of evil in a world created by God and the absurdity of living by faith. This article is an attempt to reason that God does not exist because He is perfect and the world is not perfect; evil exists therefore God cannot exist. McCloskey’s article labels these arguments as “proofs” and concludes none of these arguments would be evidence of God’s existence.
The cosmological argument is however not a valid argument in explaining the existence of god because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises. The main point in the cosmological argument is the first cause. As stated (by Aquinas) the world... ... middle of paper ... ...he conclusion does not logically follow. If nothing is self creating, god for whatever reason should not be an exception. Aquinas first way suggested thing in motion are put in motion something.
Berkeley`s states that everything is an idea and that there has to be a supreme spirit (god) out there that has the ability to put ideas in our mind. Thus, being the one who controls everything that we are able think. The way that I understood Berkeley`s argument is that he believes that the existence of “God” is essential in order to know anything from the external world. Comprehending Berkeley`s argument wasn’t an easy task, but I have come to my personal conclusion that this so called; “Supreme spirit” is not necessary for me to have knowledge about the things that I can observe. Therefore in this paper, I will argue that Berkeley`s response to skepticism is not successful because he thinks that god is the base of knowledge.
Philosophers say this proves that it cannot have been just random chance. Design qua purpose looks at the evidence of design in terms of how all ... ... middle of paper ... ... to change your beliefs. I.e. it won't convince an atheist. However, the idea of the universe just being here, a brute fact, a product of blind chance and nothing more is a personally unsatisfactory one due to the extraordinary nature of the universe and so whist the Design Argument may not conclusively prove the existence of God it suggests that the existence of a Designer, who we know as God, is a more probable likelihood than not.
However, this still fails to point towards a god or conscious creator. After exhibiting faulty methods of argument and frequent logical fallacies, the teleological argument fails as a well-crafted argument. The content of this argument refuses to account for evolutionary theory, and fails to solve the burden of proof in showing how everything is designed deliberately. Even the criterion for god, which William Paley outlines, is faulty and unachievable by the current state of reality. Although the argument proves that an amalgamation of forces formed the universe, to consider them conscious is begging the question.
For many, the idea of existence as a predicate causes issues for the ontological argument. In the argument Anselm states that God is a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and using logic he comes to the conclusion that God must exist by definition. This can be seen as strength to the argument as if it is a valid deduction it proves God’s existence to an atheist as well as a believer. However, Kant counters this argument by saying that existence could not be a predicate of anything. This is because a predicate should be something that enriches our concept of what the thing is like.
McCloskey fails to prove his points against the cosmological argument, teleological argument, and the problem of evil as has could not present strong enough argument against them. Ultimately, all he proves is that theism stronger than he had thought. It is amazing how God made such a universe that we may never know the full complexity of His universe. References Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics.
This premise is trying to compare god the being who can complete any task, to a normal person. This conflicts directly with Aquinas definition of omnipotence because it is logically possible for a person, so why isn’t it for god. I still think that his definition is correct because it is not logical to compare a person to an Omnipotence being. I think another argument could be made here that god would be doing more than carving a stone out of the earth but perhaps creating one. The paradox of the stone is an odd thing, if god wanted to keep his omnipotence he could just not create the stone therefore not be challenged.
God gave us free will to be able to choose for ourselves. McCloskey talks about free will negatively and also brings up the point that since evil exists, God cannot. This is not true by any means and we will dispute McCloskey’s points throughout this essay. McCloskey starts with disputing the Cosmological argument. McCloskey states, "The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in the existence of such a being" (McCloskey, 1968).
Demea responds by stating that we are only a speck in the whole universe limited to only what we can see. What seems evil to us now may not be evil for we cannot see how everything will end. Once we look at everything as a whole, we must make the connections and understand that with God in charge, everything will work out for the best. We cannot say that God is evil when we are only looking at the world from our point of view for we cannot see the ultimate goal which God seems to have in mind. After analyzing what Demea states, one finds that he is unknowingly on the same page as Philo.